Links to UN bodies

Links to site map

Main Links

Indicators:
Regional Consultative Meeting, Bangkok, 26-29 November 1996

Regional Consultative Meeting on Environmentally Sound and Sustainable Development Indicators
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and The Pacific

Report of the Meeting

I. ORGANIZATION OF THE MEETING

  1. The Regional Consultative Meeting on Environmentally Sound and Sustainable Development Indicators was organized by ESCAP at Bangkok, in cooperation with the United Nations Department of Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development and financial support of the Government of Netherlands, from 26 to 29 November 1996.

A. Attendance

  1. The Meeting was attended by representatives from Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Maldives, Nepal, The Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines and Thailand.
  2. The United Nations bodies, specialized agencies and related organizations represented included the Department of Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD), United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and South Asia Cooperative Environment Programme (SACEP).

B. Opening session

  1. The Meeting was opened by the Executive Secretary of ESCAP, who warmly welcomed the participants to the Meeting and the one-day workshop which was being organized to accelerate the process of development of indicators of sustainable development and to contribute to the global efforts being put forth by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). The Executive Secretary commended CSD for the leadership and motivation provided in coordinating global efforts towards producing a list of universally acceptable indicators of sustainable development.
  2. Since the Meeting was to review and examine the list of indicators and its applicability and relevance to the Asian and Pacific region, he requested the participants to provide guidance on these matters including the procedures and programmes for field testing the indicators in countries of the region. The Executive Secretary expressed his deep appreciation to the Government of the Netherlands for providing the financial support towards the organization of this important Meeting.
  3. The statement from Mr. Nitin Desai, Under-Secretary-General for the Department of Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD) was read by the Assistant Director, Human Development, Institutions and Technology Branch of DPCSD. It expressed appreciation for ESCAP's activities in promoting the CSD Work Programme on Indicators of Sustainable Development in the Asian and Pacific region. It was noted that field testing of indicators of sustainable development in the countries of the Asian and Pacific region was an important step in guiding the process towards sustainable development in the region.

C. Election of officers

  1. The Meeting elected Mr. A. Aziz Qureshi (Pakistan) as Chairperson, Ms. Sharada Bajracharya (Nepal) as Vice-Chairperson and Mr. Ruisheng Yue (China) as Rapporteur.

D. Adoption of the agenda

  1. The Meeting adopted the following agenda:
    1. Opening of the Meeting.
    2. Adoption of the agenda.
    3. Integrated environmental planning, including the use of environmental indicators: the pioneering experience of the Netherlands.
    4. Global efforts at indicator development: work programme of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.
    5. Core set of indicators for sustainable development in Asia and the Pacific: review of methodologies.
    6. Experiences of countries and agencies in indicator development.
    7. Work programme and procedures for pilot testing of indicators for sustainable development in Asia and the Pacific.
    8. Other matters.
    9. Adoption of the report.

II. INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, INCLUDING THE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS: THE PIONEERING EXPERIENCE OF THE NETHERLANDS

(Item 3 of the agenda)

  1. The presentation of the representative of Netherlands provided a context for understanding how indicators could be used and be useful in charting a course toward sustainable development. The indicator development process took practical shape with the initiation of the first National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP). This plan was driven by both a "credible story" and "optimism". The main assumption in the plan was that economic growth could be combined with a substantial reduction in emissions.
  2. It was emphasized that target setting and use of indicators played a major role in the Dutch environmental policy plans. Agreement on targets was accomplished through a national discussion and consensus on environmental problems involving all stakeholders. It enabled the country to focus on environmental outcomes and decision-making. Adoption of the life-cycle approach helped in defining problems at their source and identifying actors and organizations responsible for action. Based on this approach, themes (environmental problems) and target groups (economic sectors) were identified, leading to integrated and focused efforts for environmental protection.
  3. Eight themes identified included climate change, acidification, eutrophication, toxic and hazardous pollutants, waste disposal, disturbance, groundwater depletion and squandering. The responsible actors or target groups contributing to these themes included agriculture, industry, energy, retail trade, consumers, construction industry, waste disposal industry, drinking water supply industry, sewage and waste water treatment plants and research institutes. Using highly-aggregated indicators, performance towards these targets was assessed on an yearly basis and presented to the Parliament.
  4. In the subsequent discussion, many participants showed interest in the replicability of the Dutch planning methodology in the Asian and Pacific region. The Netherlands representative informed that a few case studies would be conducted in selected countries of the region and a regional workshop would be organized in collaboration with ESCAP in 1997 to review the experience of planning for sustainable development.

III. GLOBAL EFFORTS AT INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT: WORK PROGRAMME OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

(Item 4 of the agenda)

  1. The representative of the United Nations Department of Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development (DPCSD) in his statement gave a brief description of the activities leading up to the 1997 Special Session of the General Assembly which will review the progress since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). He then provided an overview of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development's programme of work on indicators of sustainable development, its origin and evolution. He emphasized that indicators are not an end in themselves, but only a tool to help measure progress or give a picture of where things stand at a particular moment in time. Note was made of the gradual realization among countries that traditional economic measures of progress such as GDP do not provide a complete picture of societal well-being and that in recent years emphasis has been given to finding other ways to measure development that take into account the social, economic and environmental dimensions.
  2. The importance of having good information available for decision-makers was stressed while noting the paradoxical situation that although information and information sources are proliferating at an astounding rate, decision-makers often find it difficult to obtain the right kind of information that aids in decision-making. Indicators provide a means to help bridge the information gap. Although indicators have many advantages in terms of providing concise and aggregated information, they also have various pitfalls that needed to be kept in mind while using them.
  3. The criteria used in selecting the core set of CSD indicators and the process of consensus building that was used in selecting them was also described. The Driving Force-State-Response (DSR) framework was explained as a means of organizing the indicator and providing an appropriate analytical framework. The CSD Work Programme on indicators was explained, pointing to the current status of its implementation, including completion of the methodology sheets for each indicator that was contained in the publication "Indicators of Sustainable Development: Framework and Methodologies". The various elements of the methodology sheets were also described in a concise manner.
  4. The efforts of ESCAP and the interest of the participants in the work programme on indicators was greatly appreciated and it was mentioned that only through efforts such as field testing at the country level it would be possible to implement the programme and see the wider use of sustainable development indicators.
  5. In the subsequent discussions it was noted that the CSD work programme provided a useful background and reference material which could help countries substantially in their field testing procedure.

IV. EXPERIENCES OF COUNTRIES AND AGENCIES IN INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT

(Item 5 of the agenda)

  1. Under this agenda items, the representatives of participating countries and agencies provided a brief review of their efforts towards sustainable development planning (see annex 1).

V. CORE SET OF INDICATORS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC: REVIEW OF METHODOLOGIES

(Item 6 of the agenda)

  1. The meeting had before it the document ENR/RCESSD/2, "Core set of Indicators for Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific: Review of Methodologies". The document, as presented, covered the main aspects of the process of indicator development as well as, the major efforts in indicator development and proposed a methodology for the selection of a menu of indicators which could be used for testing in the selected countries of the region. It was stated that the process of indicator development was complex, iterative and cyclical. The various steps required to be taken in the selection of indicators were identified drawing from the experiences of UN-DPCSD, OECD, ADB and Netherlands. The importance of clearly identifying uses and audiences of the indicators was emphasized. That a conceptual framework should be adopted to form the basis of the whole exercise was stressed.
  2. Strong emphasis was placed on the actual selection of a core set of indicators. The difficulties in selecting issues, use, and in obtaining supporting data were explained. The document proposed a menu of possible indicators suitable for the Asian and Pacific region. The menu took into account the Regional Action Programme approved by the Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development held in 1995 and reflected the regional priority issues.
  3. The meeting noted that the paper presented a good review of methodological options available to countries in initiating their own indicator development programmes and found that it had useful information on the selection of priority issues.
  4. Following the above presentation and discussions, the Meeting decided to continue its deliberations in three working groups. The working groups considered the following items for discussions.

       I. Selection of priority issues and related indicators;

       II. Review of related methodology sheets;

    The outcome of the deliberation on these items in the working groups were presented to the Meeting which felt that this exercise in working groups was a very fruitful simulation of methodology that could be adopted at national level. It could be replicated at national level through a national inter-agency institutional coordinating mechanism (a group of experts representing concerned agencies/institutions) for selection of priority indicators and developing their methodology sheets. The recommendations of the meeting on prioritization of indicators and development of their methodology sheets are reflected in the conclusion and recommendations part of this report.

VI. WORK PROGRAMME AND PROCEDURE FOR PILOT TESTING OF INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

(Item 7 of the agenda)

  1. The meeting had before it the document ENR/RCESSD/1. It was pointed out that the testing of the indicators of sustainable development would include organization, implementation, assessment, institutional support and capacity building as well as reporting
  2. The organizational aspect would involve setting up of a national coordination mechanism and a focal point while implementation would include selection of priority issues, matching these with indicators, assessing data availability for priority indicators, establishing necessary arrangements to collect the missing data, where possible, and collecting and compiling data for the indicators selected.
  3. The assessment would cover technical, decision making and institutional support or capacity building issues. The technical issues primarily pertain to methodology sheets for describing each indicator, the source, continuity in delivery and reliability of data as well as the data product through which analytical information is conveyed to the decision makers. The decision making issues involve the usefulness of the indicators to national decision makers and their application to the decision making process. Institutional support and capacity building issues basically relate to the provision of technical assistance and support for data collection, compilation and analysis as well as for other training and capacity building needs for the development of a national indicator programme.
  4. The reporting aspect is another very important aspect of field testing procedure as it could enable exchange of information and help in assessing the usefulness of indicators in different situations. It could also assist in evaluating and alleviating constraints. Accordingly, the structure of the report after a brief introduction, should highlight, the identification and selection of indicators, their usefulness, as well as problems and challenges faced in their use. Appropriate recommendations may also be included in the report (Annex 2).
  5. Subsequent to the presentation and discussion, the meeting divided itself into three working groups to deliberate on various issues related to this agenda item. The working group reports were presented to the plenary and the conclusions and recommendations on the agenda item are reflected in the next section of this report.

VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

  1. The participants in general found the meeting and the working group sessions to be extremely useful for understanding the relationship between priority setting and measurement in charting a course to sustainable development. The background information provided, particularly the framework methodology sheets and the Core Set of Indicator for sustainable development in Asia and the Pacific: Review of Methodologies, were seen as a useful basis for establishing national indicator programmes. Despite some problems that were identified during the discussion, participants felt that the framework and methodologies could also form an excellent basis for monitoring progress towards sustainable development along social, economic, environmental and institutional lines.
  2. The process of having small group discussions was found to be very productive aspect of the Regional Meeting which provided a positive mechanism for initiating national testing. The working group sessions were a realistic way to simulate what the countries would have to go through at the national level in establishing priorities. The background materials provided during the Meeting were considered as useful tools in starting a programme on the development of indicators.
  3. Delegates recognized that developing and using indicators would take time, effort, resources and commitment over the long term. It was considered to be a difficult process, being complex and multidimensional. It was necessary to be practical, pragmatic and flexible, building on the particular strengths that countries already had, whether it was well-organized data base, national environmental action plan or a well-organized planning mechanism.
  4. It was noted that, in many instances, information and data were already being collected for several indicators at the national level. It was agreed that, where appropriate, existing data and indicators should be fully utilized as the basis for a balanced set of indicators which represented the maximum possible range of sustainable development concerns. There was a need to focus more on aggregated indicators of sustainable development in addition to individual indicators. There was also a general consensus that more work was needed to be done on institutional indicators.
  5. For the indicators programme to be successful at the national level, the need for follow-up and support from UN agencies and bilateral donors was emphasized. Sharing of information, capacity building, and initiation of activities to exchange experiences among the testing countries were identified as particularly important.
  6. With regard to testing at the national level, participants felt that mechanisms for coordination would have to be country specific given the variety of different governmental structures. However, the idea of having a national inter-agency coordination mechanism that could bring together various stakeholders was broadly endorsed. Normally, such a mechanism should include key decision making bodies such as finance, planning, national councils or committees on environmental protection, national councils of sustainable development, statistical offices, environmental and sectoral ministries, where appropriate, with the focal point agency left to government discretion. A Technical Task Force might also be needed to handle some of the more detailed issues requiring study.
  7. Testing countries may wish to consider preparing a written action plan to cover their indicators development programme.
  8. While participants did not believe that a large commitment of resources would be needed to initiate a national programme on indicators, the need for some capacity enhancement efforts at the country level to get the process started was identified. Additional country or regional level workshops to brief working level staff on indicators could be useful. In addition, countries might require some technical assistance in the early stages of the programme.
  9. Twinning arrangements were endorsed, but it was recognized that such arrangements need not necessarily involve a developed and a developing country, but might include countries at different levels of indicator use and development. It was also felt that assistance might be needed in facilitating arrangements between countries, and ESCAP and DPCSD, could serve as catalyst in this regard.
  10. The Meeting noted with appreciation the offer of the Government of Netherlands for conducting case/feasibility studies in selected countries of the region in collaboration with ESCAP and supporting a regional meeting to be organized by ESCAP in 1997 to review the studies and approaches to planning for sustainable development.

VIII. OTHER MATTERS

(Item 8 of the agenda)

  1. The Meeting expressed its sincere gratitude to the Government of the Netherlands for providing both the financial and technical inputs necessary for the Meeting and appreciated the efforts of ESCAP and UNDPCSD in organizing the Meeting and the Workshop.

IX. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT

(Item 9 of the agenda)

  1. The report was unanimously adopted by the Meeting on 29 November 1996.